Trump's dangerous comments on fighting terrorism

waterboarding is of dubious value; its torture and doesn't give real info. But using counter-terrorism activities -
whether it's taking down Twitter accounts, or combating ISIS/AQ online pays direct benefits.
Drone warfare with proper targeting works too ( no to signature strikes, or local insurgents)

If it wasn't for the recent successes of ground troops we would be considering US ground troops -we'd have to -
it can't be done by air. But even there the sectarian militias have become killing squads, burning down, or dragging Sunni
survivors todeath/houses. The Shiite militias do their own brand of torture - we don't notice it because we don't want to.
So going after ISIS still leaves the region ripe for salafi jihad as an export. the best we can do is tamp it back down to an insurgency

It always comes down to who do you go with: Trumps wild rhetoric, or do you go with Clinton's expressed failures?
I figure Trump would modify his incendiary; but Clinton is way too entrenched in her neocon mannerisms to change.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
You should fear the terrorists more than Trump. I'd give them a better than a 50/50 chance they'll pull of a dirty bomb attack within the next decade. Let that settle in before you go to making moral equivalencies between us and them.

Regarding the equivalency: it's lame. We'd have to go a pretty long ways before we'd even be in the same moral ball park. We don't crucify people, burn them in cages, engage in genocide and/or whatever else the twisted bastards do in service of jihad.

And Trump isn't going to nuke anyone [though if we get it first, all bets are off] pre-emptively. And anything else he would do would require congressional approval, since he would be president of a republic and not a dictator.

I have the Trumpster pretty well pegged: his rhetoric is designed to communicate how serious he is about the problem of radical Islam and the potential danger it poses for this country. And yes, I'm ok with advanced interrogation techniques on *known* terrorists. And I think we should have a re-do national conversation on it and we will, if Trump gets elected.

If Hillary gets in, we can go back to fretting over climate change, transgender rights and all that weighty stuff progressives pee their pants over lol.
Click to expand...

Trump is talking about equivalency - fire for fire. Obviously, we're not lowering our standards to theirs today, but that's exactly what Trump is talking about doing.

Do you care if America stands for anything in the world, or not? That's what it comes down to. I can't take seriously his supporters attempts to pooh-pooh his rhetoric as just "campaign stuff." Does he think we should kill terrorists families or not? Does he think we should do "far worse" than waterboarding or not?

Does he think we have to fight fire with fire, or not?
 
Anyone else remember how helpful gadaffy got regarding terrorism after his family got blown up ?
There us no value in behaving in a manner your opponent doesn't understand.
 
Celticguy said:
Anyone else remember how helpful gadaffy got regarding terrorism after his family got blown up ?
There us no value in behaving in a manner your opponent doesn't understand.
Click to expand...
that was also about nukes, but yes it's a good object lesson; the Big Stick theory.

The PROBLEM is once we got Qadaffi's mind right ;
and he became an ally on combatting al-Qaeda....we destroyed his government for al-Qaeda( NTC) and "democracy"-
and that was HRClinton's doing.
 
Celticguy said:
Anyone else remember how helpful gadaffy got regarding terrorism after his family got blown up ? There us no value in behaving in a manner your opponent doesn't understand.
Click to expand...

Proud of that?

I remember how helpful the Jews got when they went to the showers...oh, wait.
 
Thing1 said:
Trump is talking about equivalency - fire for fire. Obviously, we're not lowering our standards to theirs today, but that's exactly what Trump is talking about doing.

Do you care if America stands for anything in the world, or not? That's what it comes down to. I can't take seriously his supporters attempts to pooh-pooh his rhetoric as just "campaign stuff." Does he think we should kill terrorists families or not? Does he think we should do "far worse" than waterboarding or not?

Does he think we have to fight fire with fire, or not?
Click to expand...

For someone who comes off as an authority on Trump you seem to pay little attention to the course of his campaign. Remember the Muslim ban? He backed off on it. Remember the Trump wall? He backed off on it. It will be the same with killing terrorist's families [which btw, we do now with drones] and etc.

It's campaign rhetoric. Did you believe half the crap Obama said, especially, in 2008? I bet you did lol. By no means is Trump some sort of uniquely lying politician so save that outrage for people who will buy it.

But like every other politician, Trump watches the polls. Currently they show over 50% support for what? You guessed it: a temporary ban on non-Muslim immigration. Which should tell you a couple of things: one is, Trump hit a chord no other candidate on either side hit. If he's smart, he'll learn to tone down the rhetoric while staying on message with that.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/274521-poll-half-of-american-voters-back-trumps-muslim-ban

The second thing is that those numbers tell you how many voters think terrorism is a bigger problem than climate change or whatever the progressive flavor of the week is.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
For someone who comes off as an authority on Trump you seem to pay little attention to the course of his campaign. Remember the Muslim ban? He backed off on it. Remember the Trump wall? He backed off on it. It will be the same with killing terrorist's families [which btw, we do now with drones] and etc.

It's campaign rhetoric. Did you believe half the crap Obama said, especially, in 2008? I bet you did lol. By no means is Trump some sort of uniquely lying politician so save that outrage for people who will buy it.

But like every other politician, Trump watches the polls. Currently they show over 50% support for what? You guessed it: a temporary ban on non-Muslim immigration. Which should tell you a couple of things: one is, Trump hit a chord no other candidate on either side hit. If he's smart, he'll learn to tone down the rhetoric while staying on message with that.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/274521-poll-half-of-american-voters-back-trumps-muslim-ban

The second thing is that those numbers tell you how many voters think terrorism is a bigger problem than climate change or whatever the progressive flavor of the week is.
Click to expand...

I mean, can you hear yourself?

Sure, all politicians make campaign promises that they don't follow through with, for one reason or another.

But to just constantly spew BS that you back off of the next week, and then reverse your position a few more times on...on more than a few issues? To just say whatever it takes to please the crowd on any given day?

You're voting for that? Really?

Sorry. This isn't on the level of Obama, or Hillary, or Bush, or anyone else who has run for President. Trump just says whatever, whenever. As long as it feeds the crowd.
 
anatta said:
that was also about nukes, but yes it's a good object lesson; the Big Stick theory.

The PROBLEM is once we got Qadaffi's mind right ;
and he became an ally on combatting al-Qaeda....we destroyed his government for al-Qaeda( NTC) and "democracy"-
and that was HRClinton's doing.
Click to expand...

Yes, we stupidly got involved is the so called Arab spring which has now shown itself to be the coup the jihadis wanted.
Foreign policy has been dreadful these last few years.
 
Celticguy said:
Yes, we stupidly got involved is the so called Arab spring which has now shown itself to be the coup the jihadis wanted.
Foreign policy has been dreadful these last few years.
Click to expand...
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...rom-hillary-clintons-iraq-war-apology/372427/
As Michael Crowley has reported, most of Clinton’s top foreign-policy advisors—Richard Holbrooke, Madeleine Albright, James Steinberg, William Perry, Jamie Rubin, Kenneth Pollack—were sympathetic to giving George W. Bush the authority to use force. Like them, Hillary had grown increasingly comfortable with military action during the 1990s, when Bill successfully went to war in Bosnia and Kosovo (in the latter case, without United Nations approval). And like them, she had grown increasingly militant on the subject of Saddam Hussein, whose ouster Bill had called for in 1998, and whom he had bombed for four straight days that same year in Operation Desert Fox.

Although many liberals assumed that in her heart Clinton was as dovish as them—and thus must have been insincere in her vote to authorize war—the evidence suggests that her experience during her husband’s presidency made her more hawkish. For better or worse, her behavior as secretary of state—where she championed the Afghan surge, aid to Syria’s rebels, and the war in Libya—suggests that she still is.
 
If we "fight fire with fire" the way Demagogue Don says, how are we any better than ISIS or the Taliban?

Maybe we should let other nations and their people make their own decisions about how to run their countries.

Think that's a concept whose time has come?
 
Thing1 said:
Trump is talking about equivalency - fire for fire. Obviously, we're not lowering our standards to theirs today, but that's exactly what Trump is talking about doing.

Do you care if America stands for anything in the world, or not? That's what it comes down to. I can't take seriously his supporters attempts to pooh-pooh his rhetoric as just "campaign stuff." Does he think we should kill terrorists families or not? Does he think we should do "far worse" than waterboarding or not?

Does he think we have to fight fire with fire, or not?
Click to expand...

Trump was talking about equivalent tactics as a manner of speaking---fighting fire with fire is an idiom. I'm pretty sure Trump isn't advocating beheading people. And again, I don't know where you've been with the terrorists families bit, but we've killed many of them under Obama. In fact, given the nature of the 'war' it's going to be difficult if not at times, impossible, to not have familial casualties.

When they got bin Laden he was housed with one of his nine wives or whatever and who knows how many kids; and if Obama would have droned bin Laden the whole lot of them would have been killed.

If Trump plans on being transparent about it I'm not sure what the big deal is. Not a whole lot is going to change.

These people mean to kill us, you know that right? God forbid they ever kill tens of thousands but if they do, you'll quickly change your tune about it. I suggest we do everything in our power to prevent that.

Trump is more serious about it than anyone that was in the race on either side.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Trump was talking about equivalent tactics as a manner of speaking---fighting fire with fire is an idiom. I'm pretty sure Trump isn't advocating beheading people. And again, I don't know where you've been with the terrorists families bit, but we've killed many of them under Obama. In fact, given the nature of the 'war' it's going to be difficult if not at times, impossible, to not have familial casualties.

When they got bin Laden he was housed with one of his nine wives or whatever and who knows how many kids; and if Obama would have droned bin Laden the whole lot of them would have been killed.

If Trump plans on being transparent about it I'm not sure what the big deal is. Not a whole lot is going to change.

These people mean to kill us, you know that right? God forbid they ever kill tens of thousands but if they do, you'll quickly change your tune about it. I suggest we do everything in our power to prevent that.
Click to expand...

There has been collateral death for as long as war has existed.

That is insanely different from ordering soldiers to hunt & intentionally kill the families of terrorists.

Get a friggin' grip.
 
Legion Troll said:
Trump called on America to "fight fire with fire." The presumptive GOP nominee told supporters that, while he likes waterboarding, it probably isn't "tough enough."

"We have to be so strong," Trump said. "We have to fight so viciously. And violently because we're dealing with violent people viciously."

Trump reiterated his belief that America should hold itself to the same standard as a fascist death cult. Asked to respond to Senator John McCain's claim that torture is "not the American way," Trump replied, "Well it’s not the American way to have heads chopped off and have people drowning in steel cages, and so we can have our disagreements, but we’re going to have to get much tougher as a country. We’re going to have to be a lot sharper and we’re going to have to do things that are unthinkable almost."

It's worth remembering that, for the Republican standard-bearer, ordering the military to hunt down and kill the wives and children of suspected terrorists falls under the "thinkable" column.



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/trump-amplifies-his-support-for-war-crimes.html
Click to expand...

Eye for an eye just as Jesus taught...:rolleyes:
 
NOVA said:
You've never been in a fight have you thingy ?
Never had to defend yourself, have you.

You believe that the Queensberry rules apply when you're attacked, don't you ?

Just askin'.....
Click to expand...

You think trump has ever been in a fight?? A fist fight??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top